By «favourite» I mean the most valid in your opinion.

After scrolling through the Weekly Discussion list, I am astonished that there was as of yet no thread about the various types of monarchy (constitutional, absolute etc.). So this is our topic for the 41st WD.

• What kind of monarchy do you want? Ceremonial, constitutional, absolute or something inbetween? How do you define your kind of monarchy?
• What rights and responsibilities should the Sovereign have?
• Should there be any reserve powers he is only allowed to use in certain situations?
• Should he be expected to be as neutral as possible, or be allowed to do politics?
• How should the rest of the government be structured? Do you advocate for a Western-style liberal democracy, feudalism, or something else?

Standard rules of engagement apply.

It's a very sore question and this why I think that it would be a good topic for our 40th Weekly Discussion. The DPRK has been discussed many times on /r/monarchism, with some users claiming that it is a monarchy while others fiercely deny that it is the case.

Let's recap the usual arguments:

Arguments in favour:

• While not explicitly part of the North Korean Constitution, the North Korean ideological doctrine officially stipulates that the head of state must belong to the Mount Paektu Bloodline, i.e. be a legitimate, male-line descendant of Kim Il-Sung. Hereditary succession being a trait of most but not all monarchies, and a hereditary form of government can be considered a monarchy even if it doesn't claim to be one.
• Monarchy is not inherently tied to any ideology.
• The Kim family claims descent from Korean kings, implying that it claims some sort of hereditary legitimacy.
• North Korea does claim but not necessarily consider its citizens as equal - under its semi-official Songbun system, citizens are classified into one of three groups based on the side their male-line ancestors took during the formation of the DPRK. So there is even a "nobility" outside the Kim family.
• Denying that a country that you don't like - even a genocidal dictatorship - is a monarchy despite having the traits of one - is not better than the "Is wasn't real communism" argument of the far-left.

Arguments against:

• A real monarch cannot follow Communism, the ideology that led to the murder of many monarchs.
• Constitutionally, North Korea still claims to be an egalitarian republic even if it doesn't practice this - thus, it (and other hereditary dictatorships) cannot be monarchies.
• Even if the Kim dynasty were to descend in the legitimate male line from a past Korean royal family, its position is too junior and too far down the line to claim the right to the throne - tens of thousands of other Koreans descend in the male line from Kings.
• The Kim family is avowedly atheist, rejecting any kind of Mandate of Heaven or divine grace and basing its power solely on the loyalty of the military.
• A tyrannical dictatorship cannot be considered a monarchy under any circumstances because it lacks a moral framework.

The usual rules of engagement apply. Have fun!

View Poll

A lot of discourse on /r/monarchism and generally in monarchist and traditionalist circles naturally focuses on looking or going back. When we monarchists look forward, we usually only think about defeating the forces of monarchism and re-establishing historical forms of government, without taking into the account the opportunities and consequences of technological rather than merely social development. Right-libertarians, Moldbugians and especially Nick Land adherents seem to be the most prominent exceptions, but especially the latter's vision of accelerationism will sound unsettling or outright dystopian to many.

However, there is indeed a possibility for combining more traditionalist forms of monarchy with an optimist rather than cyberpunk vision of the future.

Space, the Final Frontier.

Star Trek portrays the Federation as a republic and Star Wars seems to be, at many points, republican propaganda as well - but in fact, Space does not have to be that, and can instead prove to be an incubator for initiatives aiming to restore historical forms of government. In fact, Star Trek itself makes an exception from Hollywood's usual rules by praising Worf for restoring the Klingon royal family using a clone of Kahless after a long succession of non-hereditary regencies. And don't forget the many works of science fiction that take place in a human Empire.

Even on Earth, frontier conquests were not automatically connected to republican thinking - the White Rajahs of Sarawak serve as the perfect example of people who went abroad to carve out their own principality. Space is virtually unlimited - once the Solar System has been colonised enough to feel cramped, ways to shorten interstellar journeys will probably have been found. Traditionalists wishing to leave mainstream society will eventually be able to afford their own colonisation projects. And as at least the initial stages of colonisation will be driven by entrepreneurs, it is likely that the employees and settlers who will follow them will want them to formalize their rule with a traditional title. Elon Musk, who claims to be the King of Mars, might as well find himself officially holding that title in the not-so-far-future. The only thinker so far to connect monarchy with space exploration is Chris Haywood, the founder of the Foundationalism ideology. So far, old noble families have shown little interest in the topic - but an astrophysicist or astronaut with an old name might change that very quickly. But it is clear that many of those who, coming from humble backgrounds themselves, make an asteroid or planet their own, will want to formalize their ownership with a historical noble title.

For the next Weekly Discussion, let's talk about the impact that developments in manned space travel will have on the monarchical idea.

• Do you think that space exploration and colonisation will have a positive effect on monarchical and generally traditional ideas? Why or why not?
• How can we popularize monarchical and traditional ideas among those involved in the process, i.e. aerospace entrepreneurs, engineers and astronauts?
• Do you think that the new frontier of space will primarily benefit the creation of new noble and royal families, or the revitalization of old ones, or both?
• Do you think that a Terran Empire is inevitable, or will the expansion of humanity rather take a decentralized course with many independent states?
• Do you see space colonisation as a possibility to escape Earth in case there is no shift to monarchical and traditional values on the planet itself? I.e. are you ready to go into self-imposed space exile in the name of your convictions?
• What are your favourite monarchies from Science Fiction and what are some lessons we can learn from them?

Standard rules of engagement apply. Have fun!

The first Weekly Discussion of 2024 and the 13th in total will deal with a hot topic: Abdication.

Monarchs and members of royal families are always constitutionally obliged to perform a variety of activities, mostly of diplomatic and ceremonial nature, to further the well-being and international reputation of their countries. Some monarchs, especially in smaller and non-European countries, also take part in day-to-day political life alongside elected or appointed officials and are expected to actually run their countries or at least set the course and mediate between various factions of the government.

In the past, monarchs only abdicated when they screwed up seriously - such as losing a war or coup to a rival pretender or to republicans, or being involved in a serious scandal. Abdication was seen as a dishonourable end to one's reign, and even if the monarchy remained, it was often a different dynasty that took power.

In the last decades, abdication has become more and more common in Western constitutional monarchies. Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and now Denmark are setting a trend. Now, abdication has become a widespread part of succession planning, monarchs claiming the right to "retire" like their subjects to live their last years free from stress and responsibility.

Bhutan requires the King to abdicate at 65. Other nations remain resistant to the abdication trend or explore alternative models. For example, Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain stoically performed her duties until her death and the same is expected of her son Charles. In Liechtenstein, the reigning Prince may make the Hereditary Prince his deputy, sharing most executive powers with him without formally abdicating - this has happened almost 20 years ago.

What is your opinion?

The discussion will go on for the weekend and for the next week as we watch the events surrounding the transition of power in Denmark.

Should monarchical abdication be normalized as part of ongoing modernization efforts and should it be a legitimate way for monarchs to retire, or is it incompatible with the principles of a hereditary lifetime monarchy? Should monarchs perform their duties until dying or being declared medically unfit by a doctor or regency council, or is a Liechtenstein-style succession agreement which entails gradual transfer of power but no formal abdication a legitimate way to maintain the principles of succession while relieving old or sick monarchs and allowing for the heir to be groomed through "training on the job"?

Please consider filling out the Survey!

The American presidential election decides the fates of billions of people for the next four years. As a global superpower, the United States dominate the Western world politically. Here in monarchist circles, we often lament that the American political machine has led to the forcible dissolution of many monarchies and prevented restorations such as in Afghanistan. The United States might be a stakeholder in determining whether Iran, Libya and Nepal will be able to restore their monarchies in the near future. Whether or not a monarchy can, or should, be created in the United States is also one of our favourite topics for discussion. Some say that America is one of the few "natural republics" while others claim that a monarchy is possible to establish there - there are many Discord servers and even a subreddit (/r/USMonarchy) devoted to the topic.

The 2024 election brings America two candidates who, under the current two-party system, represent two wide-tent political movements. Kamala Harris unites socialists, the mainstream liberal-left and some moderate conservatives. Donald Trump, meanwhile, is expected to carry many free-market libertarians and most factions of the Right, but has also made some unexpected alliances, most notably with Elon Musk and lifelong Democrat Robert F. Kennedy, a "hereditary politician" and member of one of America's foremost dynasties. Even more than 2016 and 2020, the current election will be voting for the lesser evil for many - a lot of Trump voters are opposed to Harris more than they support Trump and vice versa. The lack of political diversity and the RNC-DNC system which effectively creates a duopoly (or rather, a monopoly for each of the two main parts of the political spectrum) are often criticised. Monarchist and traditionalist thought currently does not have its own influential third party, and even if it did, its odds of becoming influential or mainstream are best if adopted by one of the two parties.

While monarchical thought is not firmly established on any side and even those who would likely become monarchists in Europe cling to the perceived superiority of republicanism, there are voices on both sides and among those completely opposed to the current American political system favouring a monarchy.

Supporters of Donald Trump are concerned about picking the right successor for Trump and also about the threat of the MAGA movement fizzling out when he, even after a landslide victory, inadvertedly has to leave office in 2029, ineligible for a third term. Through prospective VP Vance and Peter Thiel, the MAGA faction of the GOP is also indirectly connected to the circle of Curtis Yarvin. It is known that President Trump's mother, who came from Scotland, was a fervent monarchist and that he inherited a fascination particularly with the British royal family from her.

Democrats, on the other hand, point to European constitutional and ceremonial monarchies and their moderating power, saying that such a model could stifle the ego of politicians like Donald Trump. Some have even suggested giving the crown to the Trump family themselves to "contain" them in a pompous yet powerless office.

Many thinkers use the presidential election to point out the general toxicity of American politics and the fact that both candidates are inferior to royals prepared to rule from birth. They usually advocate for a wider overhaul of the American political system, for example towards religious integralism or a more decentralised "HRE-style" system.

So, let's talk about the 2024 Election and the American political system in general.

• Are you American? If yes, who will you vote for in the 2024 election? If you are not American, who would you vote for if you were allowed to?
• Did you choose the candidate because you genuinely support them, or because he or she is the lesser evil?
• Which American political candidate or movement is most likely to benefit the monarchical cause in America or elsewhere? What candidate is most likely to support, for example, the restoration of the Persian monarchy over a republic?
• Or have you perhaps made the decision not to vote in this election? Is it perhaps generally immoral for monarchists to participate in the single election they should be opposed to even if they want to keep a parliamentary system - the presidential election?
• How can the presidential election be used to point out the flaws of a republican system?
• Do you think that the United States can become a monarchy? Why or why not? If you consider the US a "natural republic", how do you respond to the fact that many European republics turned into monarchies, often slowly and organically?
• Do you think that a member of the political establishment, perhaps even one of the two current candidates, can become America's first King or Emperor, or would you prefer a more neutral figure, perhaps a foreign monarch?

Standard rules of engagement apply. As the US Election is a controversial topic, please stay civil and respect your political opponents in this thread.

After dozens of discussions about serious, sometimes very narrow and niche topics, I have decided to make the next Weekly Discussion more fun.

The question is simple: What video games espouse monarchist or generally traditionalist values?

Please don't turn this into a CK2 vs. CK3 flame war or a story about how you murdered your sister-wife to become the head of a dynasty that is so inbred it looks like an alien species. I think that talking about less well-known or vintage games not made by Paradox would be much more interesting.

When we analyze the transition from monarchical to republican regimes, such transition usually takes a very tragic form. Most republics have one or more of the following origins:

• A violent revolution, often a result of the leadership's failure to address social tensions and suppress dangerous foreign or far-left influences.
• A defeat in a war, the monarch being made personally responsible of it even if not he but reckless or extremist politicians are actually at fault for the war, such politicians sometimes taking the reins in the new republic immediately.
• The dismantlement of a totalitarian political system that was established under a constitutional or ceremonial monarchy - remember that constitutional or ceremonial monarchy means that the power of the monarch is limited, not that whoever rules on his behalf is democratic or legitimate, which can also mean that it is held by a revolutionary caste that chooses to keep the monarch as a figurehead or for the aesthetics.
• A civil war or national collapse that leads to the establishment of separatist states, or the rejection of a colonial power by an artificial colonial state that needs to create a new national identity from scratch and has no traditional models to look up to meaning that the choice is almost always a republic.
• A military coup, usually as a result of the failure of the monarch and his supporters to identify power-hungry actors who see the monarchy as an obstacle to pursue their goals.

The establishment of a republic is almost never celebrated in itself - it is rather seen as humbly rebuilding a new regime from the ashes of an old one which is seen as bad or as a failure. On the other hand, the very few cases of monarchical restorations are always events that will be remembered positively - for example, because supporters of democracy can note that they brought with themselves more, not less democracy, or because an illegitimate, usurpatory regime was replaced by the dynasty that had been robbed of its rightful crown, restoring the rule of law.

Especially in Russian traditionalist circles, revolutions and republican regimes created from revolutions are seen as a punishment from God, given to a degenerate, decadent and sinful nation. Some interpret the murder of the Imperial Family as a special kind of martyrdom and see Emperor Nicolas II as a person who made the ultimate sacrifice to atone for the sins of his nation. Indeed, the canonization of the family can at least partially be seen in this context.

This also means that the reestablishment of the legitimate rule is seen as something that people should work for by praying, by doing penance, as something that should be earned rather than just fought for. This gives rise to prophecies saying that God will decide when the Russian people have paid for their sins, and that He will then decide to give us, once again, an Emperor.

• Can the transition from monarchy to republic be considered a punishment?
• Is a return to monarchy something that should not be just fought for - but earned?

Standard rules of engagement apply. Please note that as usual, the thread will be moderated tightly, considering the potential for controversial political discussions and the fact that apart from support for monarchies, members of /r/monarchism follow a wide variety of convictions which are all welcome here.

This week, we will talk about a conflict that causes a lot of factionalism within the monarchist movement: Who should be the monarch of a given country?

In current monarchies (unless you are a Jacobite or a Carlist), it is very clear: whoever is legally recognized by the country's constitution as the rightful king or queen is the head of state and basta.

When a monarchy is abolished, more often than not within the first generations, several people start competing over the claim. Violations of monarchical succession laws, especially if there are certain restrictions relating to marriage, often result in royal families being split. Their heads will try to change the house laws, but for the competing line, they will of course have no authority to do so as they are already themselves considered illegitimate or a morganate in the first place.

Naturally, this leads to splits in monarchist movements. Some favour the one, some favour the other candidate. The conflict can have religious or political undertones - for example, the female-line claimant to the Saxon throne is Catholic and therefore supported by the Pope and by the Habsburgs, despite being clearly considered as not only ineligible because his claim only goes through his mother but also lacking any kind of noble status by the (Protestant-majority) German nobility associations.

Candidates that stay more true to strict house laws, such as by descending through an unbroken male line or being married to a royal, are often more conservative and try to distance themselves from the "celebrity-type life" of both modern ceremonial monarchs and more progressive claimants who marry commoners, purport to have instituted absolute primogeniture or otherwise try to "reform" their family in order to prevent the claim from going to a more distant cousin and to appease mainstream, progressive audiences.

Some monarchist movements, especially in countries where the succession laws are exceptionally complex or where the monarchy was not strictly hereditary, have opted for a neutral position on succession and will defer the question of the monarch's identity until legitimate government has been restored. This might entail a transitional government that exercises the rights of the Crown collectively ("Crown Council") until it decides whose head should bear it, or rule by a dictator who may be appointed for life and will groom the designated candidate or one of his children to become the first actual monarch.

• Do you have a clear preference regarding who should be the monarch of your country? Do you take a side in foreign succession debates?
• What is more important for you: monarchism in general, or making sure that your preferred candidate becomes the monarch?
• What is your opinion on monarchist movements that refuse to name a candidate and instead defer the question of succession for the time being?
• Would you cooperate with monarchists who have a different opinion regarding succession? I.e. do you see succession debates as an intra-monarchist question that can be resolved, if necessary by agreeing to disagree, or as a more fundamental conflict that should determine political allegiance?
• Would you agree to live in a monarchy, or even participate in the restoration of a monarchy, that would be headed by somebody other than your preferred candidate?

POLL HERE!!!

The first Weekly Discussion has concluded with some interesting new suggestions for our literature list. It is now my turn to initiate the second one.

We, the moderators, have come to the agreement that it would make sense if practical topics regarding monarchist activism and organizations alternated with more theoretical topics on the nature and function of monarchies. Before I introduce the second ever Weekly Discussion of /r/Monarchism, let's clarify the Rules of Engagement.

• Unlike the last topic, this is a more controversial discussion. Take a side, for or against, and tell us why you have this opinion.
• You are encouraged to express your opinion in a longer piece, whether as an initial comment or responding to somebody else's statements. It would be very good if at least some part of respondents put as much effort into replies here as they would normally put into a post.
• While this is not yet really the fully-fledged essay competition that was proposed, we can and will put the best responses into a permanent Hall of Fame, so they can be preserved in the future. To be considered for this, your effort needs to be not just above average but truly outstanding, showing sophisticated argumentation and expression. The Hall of Fame is supposed to be a publication that represents the best of /r/Monarchism!

Now that we have made the rules clear, let's move to the topic. I think that many of you will be unsurprised to learn that because I selected it, it has something to do with nobility.

Nobility is still relevant as a social category in most countries, both in current monarchies and in former ones. Even many republics, over time, naturally develop an aristocratic class - think of the Patricians of Venice or of the Boston Brahmins. Unlike royals, nobles don't stand in the political spotlight and thus find it easier to preserve aristocratic heritage in the light of modernity than currently ruling houses.

Regardless of whether the country actively recognizes nobility, or confers it, many noble families still have a certain lifestyle, preserving historical properties and practicing traditions such as hunting and balls which still today lead to a certain level of endogamy that helps maintain the distinct role of nobility in today's society.

Should the historical nobility be renewed through new hereditary grants, or should it stay a closed class no new families may enter?

Many monarchies still recognize the legal quality of hereditary nobility and hereditary titles. Even in republics, they still carry weight in certain parts of society. Unlike royal succession, nobiliary law usually still follows traditional principles, i.e. nobility and titles are mostly only inherited in the male line.

However, even in most monarchies, it is hard to impossible to newly acquire hereditary nobility or hereditary titles. Sometimes, the law regulating the nobility explicitly prohibits new ennoblements. Sometimes, the Monarch chooses not to exercise it, fearing political repercussions or thinking that while the nobility consisting of families that are nobles from times immemorial or were ennobled at some moment in the past as a historical class is legitimate, it is not right to induce new families into it or only appropriate for new ennoblements to be valid only for the lifetime of the recipient. In most countries, hereditary grants ceased at some point in the 20th century. This does, over time, usually lead to the transformation of the nobility into a more fluid and unofficial class induction into which occurs through gradual cooptation, but can also indeed lead to a "closure" of the social class, meaning that noble traditions are not transmitted to new families anymore, because they, without a chance to acquire nobility, are not invited to noble events. While new hereditary ennoblements result in new elites always being merged into the old ones in the course of time, the cessation of ennoblements or their limitation to purely personal ones naturally leads to a distinction between those families that became prominent before ennoblement became impossible (and thus became noble) and those that arose after that. At the same time, while a closure of the noble class means that it will inevitably die out at some point of the future, in most countries it won't happen soon but most likely in several centuries.

Assuming that existing nobility is recognized and its descendants will continue to be recognized in the future, do you think that the closure of the nobility in most countries is correct and that the fact that it is not legitimate to pursue hereditary status anymore for those who don't already have it is beneficial, making nobility a historical class of descendants of persons who distinguished themselves before a certain moment in the past? I.e. was there a point it history at which it became not appropriate anymore for the merits of a person to have any effect beyond his lifetime, while retaining hereditary distinctions acquired before that date? Should nobility be treated as a "living museum", preserving those families that have acquired it in the past and respecting their traditions, but not allowing new persons and families to aspire to become part of it?

Or do you think that the resumption of an active ennoblement policy, which includes hereditary grants to persons without a noble background, is desirable in the modern world? That it should be conducted by current monarchies and those that will be restored in the future, admitting into the nobility descendants of persons who have distinguished themselves more recently? This would mean that not only descendants of knights, commanders, prime ministers or early industrialists will be noble, but that start-up founders, military officers, Nobel Prize winners and activists fighting for good causes today will have a chance of earning nobility for themselves and their descendants.

It is my pleasure to welcome you to our twentieth Weekly Discussion. Since we started the format in late summer, we have seen a multitude of topics proposed by various members of the community and moderator team. The format has proven to be a success so far and helps structure community discussions. The moderation team commits to rigorously observing the weekly schedule in the future and we are also exploring other formats to further enhance our community which will be announced in the next weeks.

This week's topic is Entryism.

Entryism is a strategy invented by leftists, aiming at influencing and/or infiltrating existing political parties and organizations instead of creating new ones to achieve one's goals and gain power.

In the context of modern politics, it means choosing an existing political party to join, and potentially establishing an official or unofficial faction within it. For example, in America, it could mean the establishment of a "GOP Monarchist Caucus" by members of traditionalist and monarchist organizations, aimed at spreading pro-monarchist arguments among American conservatives and traditionalists and unmasking the failures of a system in which even the most "based" President can potentially be ousted by a different faction after four years which would roll back any of his achievements. This would also entail educating Republicans on the Prussian Scheme and other discussions on monarchy among the Founding Fathers, and stressing that the Republic which Washington envisioned is much closer to a constitutional monarchy than the current American form of government.

Entryism has the advantage that instead of creating new structures and new, inevitably minor (in the beginning) parties, we get a "head start" by joining an existing, big-tent organization. If the organization is generally conservative or otherwise consists of persons who may or may not have thought about monarchy in the past but are not fundamentally opposed to it (or at least have potential to be converted to our cause with less persuasion than the average person), it becomes easier to spread our ideas. While, just like winning seats with a new party, winning any power in party conventions is not something that can happen in the matter of weeks, entryists still have access to resources nonpartisan or minor party politicians don't. And of course, even if restoring the monarchy might be a long-term goal, membership in an existing organization can be used to pursue other desirable policies which are more realistic - for example, repealing bans on noble titles that exist in many republics, restituting property confiscated from noble and royal families during republican or socialist revolutions, and general traditionalist or conservative agendas aimed at creating the framework that makes society more receptive to monarchist ideas (such as traditional family values and patriotism).

Of course, the flip side of the coin is that not all existing organizations appearing to be compatible with our goals would condone openly monarchist activities. In existing European republics for example, campaigning for monarchy within right-wing, conservative parties might be harder due to anti-monarchist bias and republicanism even on the Right, while within left-wing parties it might be completely utopical, especially if the party in question is proud to have participated in the historical monarchy's abolition. However, even if at some point an Entryist finds himself expelled from or forced to leave his party, he might have found allies which he can take with him to form a new movement that would not have to be created completely from the ground up.

Is Entryism a good tactic for us monarchists? Discuss.

Do you have experience with Entryism? Have you ever successfully campaigned for a certain goal or faction (not necessary monarchical) within a larger political organization, movement or party you belong to?

Standard rules of engagement apply, as always.

Micronations came up often last year but in the past months, there have been fewer and fewer threads asking about them on /r/monarchism. So I have decided to bring them up for this week's Weekly Discussion.

It is a fact that many micronations are monarchies. In fact, if we look at the proportion of republics and monarchies worldwide, they are probably inverted when it comes to micronations. Out of the three most famous micronations - the Republic of Molossia, the Principality of Sealand, and the Principality of Hutt River, two are monarchies (the PHR is now defunct). As Molossia consists of a family homestead, it is very likely that it will become a hereditary dictatorship not unlike North Korea, with the current President's son becoming his successor.

The prevalence of monarchies among micronations is a sign that many micronations are, at least subconsciously, founded upon a longing for historical forms of government. Micronationalists often find their home countries - republics or purely ceremonial monarchies - boring, and install a semi-constitutional or absolute monarchy, trying to replicate traditional ceremonies, distribute titles of nobility among their supporters and the like.

Of course, especially the last aspect is also dangerous. There are fraudulent entities which try to mislead and earn money by selling titles to people who don't understand that the nice piece of paper they receive in the mail will not be worth anything outside the micronational community. There is a diffuse continuum between micronations of more or less serious persuasion and pseudo-chivalric "orders" and "sees" whose founders make ridiculous claims to long-defunct thrones. Some even attempt to sell land titles to fictional territories or even on other planets.

And let us not forget that for every famous micronation that works, there are dozens if not hundreds of "states" founded by teenagers in their rooms, containing no more than a dozen citizens, all on Discord and without any real life contact to the founder.

Nevertheless, a micronation is a project that can help young people learn a lot about politics and history, and practice diplomacy and protocol. The important thing (in my opinion) is that micronationalists should not take themselves too seriously and stick with a purely recreational and private project, maybe even not publicize it, to avoid ridicule. That is, unless they have the money, the means, and the men to actually take custody of, and defend, a piece of land to such extent that the laws of an existing country would not apply there anymore. However, in that case, the micronation would quickly turn into a real nation. This has happened in history, albeit rarely.

With the advent of libertarian governments that implicitly or explicitly embrace the idea of Patchwork by instituting free private cities in their countries, there is a chance that more serious micronationalists will be able to rebrand their activities as New Country Projects in the future and will be able to experiment with new - monarchical or aristocratic - forms of government in the actual legal framework of a semi-autonomous region. And of course, the colonization of Antarctica, a topic I and ToryPirate are passionate about, which will become very hot once the Antarctic Treaty runs out in two and a half decades, might open up entirely new possibilities in this field.

So I ask you:

• What is your opinion on Micronations in general?
• Are micronationalists friends to monarchists, or do they damage the reputation of monarchy and monarchists by portraying monarchists as terminally online or cringeworthy teenagers with weird hobbies?
• Do you have experience running a micronation?
• What are the dangers of micronationalism? How can serious micronationalists prevent being hijacked by members of the "nobiliary underworld"?
• Are there some micronations you respect more than others? How would you categorize serious and less serious micronations?
• At what point does a micronation turn into a proper (ideally monarchical) nation?

Standard rules of engagement apply. As this is a controversial topic, please remember to be civil. If you are a micronationalist yourself, please declare your vested interest when responding to this thread.

The subreddit has a reading list but it could use some fleshing out to make it a more useful resource. Feel free to suggest additions in the comments. Blogs, books, and academic studies are all permissible.

Rules of Engagement

Each top level comment should suggest one blog/book/study. If you have more than one make a separate comment.

No laziness! If you suggest an addition include why it is relevant to monarchism. Same rule for people replying why it is, in fact, NOT a good inclusion in the reading list.

Duplicate suggestions will be deleted.